Related links

Key figures 2017

Infographic 2017

More statistics to download

Top 25

This ranking shows the largest applicants1 at the EPO, indicating their country of origin2.

EPO states3

US

JP

CN

KR

1.HUAWEI

2 398

2.SIEMENS

2 220

3.LG

2 056

4.SAMSUNG

2 016

5.QUALCOMM

1 854

6.ROYAL PHILIPS

1 733

7.UNITED TECHNOLOGIES

1 719

8.INTEL

1 435

9.ROBERT BOSCH

1 412

10.ERICSSON

1 373

11.GENERAL ELECTRIC

1 372

12.BASF

1 265

13.SONY

1 219

14.MICROSOFT

1 159

15.NOKIA

919

16.BAYER

880

17.JOHNSON & JOHNSON

874

18.PROCTER & GAMBLE

804

19.VALEO

770

20.DOW CHEMICAL

734

21.PANASONIC

728

22.CANON

708

23.HITACHI

707

24.PHILIPS LIGHTING

700

25.ZTE

679

EPO states3

US

JP

CN

KR

Source: EPO.
Status: 22.1.2018.

1 This is the ranking of the main consolidated applicants at the EPO in 2017 (first-named applicant principle). It is based on European patent applications filed with the EPO, which include direct European applications and international (PCT) applications that entered the European phase during the reporting period. Applications by identifiable subsidiaries, not necessarily located in the same country, are allocated to the consolidated applicants.

2 The countries refer to the country of residence of the headquarters.

3 EPO states: the 38 member states of the European Patent Organisation, which includes the 28 states of the EU.

Top 50

This ranking shows the largest applicants1 at the EPO (first-named applicant principle). It indicates the total number of European applications filed with the EPO for each and the split between direct European applications (Direct) and international (PCT) applications that entered the European phase (PCT regional) during the reporting period.

Direct

PCT regional2

1.HUAWEI

2 398

2.SIEMENS

2 220

3.LG

2 056

4.SAMSUNG

2 016

5.QUALCOMM

1 854

6.ROYAL PHILIPS

1 733

7.UNITED TECHNOLOGIES

1 719

8.INTEL

1 435

9.ROBERT BOSCH

1 412

10.ERICSSON

1 373

11.GENERAL ELECTRIC

1 372

12.BASF

1 265

13.SONY

1 219

14.MICROSOFT

1 159

15.NOKIA

919

16.BAYER

880

17.JOHNSON & JOHNSON

874

18.PROCTER & GAMBLE

804

19.VALEO

770

20.DOW CHEMICAL

734

21.PANASONIC

728

22.CANON

708

23.HITACHI

707

24.PHILIPS LIGHTING

700

25.ZTE

679

26.3M

675

27.HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE

643

28.CONTINENTAL

629

29.HONEYWELL

619

30.BOEING

608

31.TOSHIBA

596

32.MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC

579

33.CEA3

544

34.TOYOTA MOTOR

535

35.GOOGLE

527

36.MEDTRONIC

527

37.HP

519

38.TECHNICOLOR

509

39.ABB

508

40.BOE TECHNOLOGY

500

41.OLYMPUS

496

42.MERCK KGAA

488

43.MHI4

462

44.FRAUNHOFER5

460

45.NESTLE

451

46.SABIC

436

47.FUJITSU

435

48.UNILEVER

422

49.VESTEL ELEKTRONIK

408

50.DSM

395

Direct

PCT regional2

Source: EPO.
Status: 22.1.2018.

1 This is the ranking of main consolidated applicants at the EPO in 2017. It is based on European patent applications filed with the EPO, which include direct European applications (Direct) and international (PCT) applications that entered the European phase (PCT regional) during the reporting period. Applications made by subsidiaries are allocated to the consolidated applicants.

2 PCT applications that entered the European phase during the reporting period.

Shares in applications 1

A breakdown by category of applicants requesting services from the EPO shows that 69% of them were large companies, 24% were SMEs and individual inventors, and 7% were universities and public research institutes. This shows that a significant proportion of applicants at the EPO are smaller entities.

2017

2016

Large enterprises

69%

66%

SMEs², individual inventors

24%

28%

Universities and public research

7%

6%

Source: EPO.
Status: 22.1.2018.

1 The evaluation is based on a representative sample of patent applications treated by the EPO in 2016.

2 It refers to the European Commission definition of SMEs (2003/361/EC).

Data available in government and commercial databases as well as on company internet sites are analysed to allocate the applicant to one of the four categories. Depending on the company policy, the cross-ownership criteria can be difficult to evaluate. To ensure that the results remain statistically significant, no analysis per country or industrial sector is provided.